Highlights From the House Hearing on Russian Interference in the U.S. Election

Video

James B. Comey, the director of the F.B.I., said the agency was investigating whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Republicans and Democrats put their own spin on his statements.Published OnMarch 20, 2017CreditImage by Eric Thayer for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The House Intelligence Committee usually meets behind closed doors to talk about secrets. But on Monday it made an exception, noting the intense public interest in its topic: the interference by Russian intelligence in the American election. The hearing shed some official light on a topic that has been the subject of a great deal of media reporting — and gave members of both parties a chance to score political points. Here are the highlights.

Yes, There Is a Russia-Trump Investigation

James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, confirmed early in Monday’s hearing that the bureau is indeed, as has been widely reported, investigating the interference by Russian intelligence in the 2016 American presidential election — including any possible collusion by aides and associates of President Trump.

Mr. Comey said the investigation will cover “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

The F.B.I. director noted that the inquiry is technically a counterintelligence investigation, focusing not on criminal conduct but on Russian intelligence activities. But he said F.B.I. agents will conduct “an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”

Mr. Comey noted that usual F.B.I. practice is “not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations,” and that the Justice Department had approved his departure from that practice. He did not address what everyone in the room was thinking: that Mr. Comey last year famously broke that rule repeatedly to discuss the F.B.I. investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, producing negative publicity that some believe cost her the presidency. (Mr. Comey did make a vague reference to past public statements the bureau had made about closed cases.)

F.B.I. and N.S.A. Directors Debunk Trump’s Wiretap Claim

In strong statements, both Mr. Comey and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, definitively dismissed Mr. Trump’s March 4 Twitter posts claiming that he and his campaign had been the target of eavesdropping ordered by former President Barack Obama.

While the two officials hedged their answers on some questions and declined to answer others, they were unequivocal in rebutting Mr. Trump’s claims.

“I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the F.B.I.,” Mr. Comey said. “The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.”

Admiral Rogers was asked about another theory, first floated on Fox News and repeated by Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary: that Mr. Obama had asked the British spy agency, known as G.C.H.Q., to intercept Mr. Trump’s communications.

“I’ve seen nothing on the N.S.A. side that we engaged in any such activity, nor that anyone ever asked us to engage in such activity,” Admiral Rogers said. Representative Adam Schiff, the committee’s top Democrat, asked what he made of official British denunciations of the G.C.H.Q. claim as “nonsense and utterly ridiculous.”

“Would you agree?” Mr. Schiff asked.

“Yes, sir,” said Admiral Rogers.

Democratic Former Prosecutor Highlights Trump-Russia Ties

Mr. Schiff, who worked as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles early in his career, used his opening statement at the hearing — unusually long at 15 minutes — to weave a circumstantial case of striking and mysterious connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

“The Russians successfully meddled in our democracy and our intelligence agencies have concluded they will do so again,” Mr. Schiff said. Mr. Schiff’s statement is also the conclusion of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the N.S.A., accepted even by most Republicans.

But then he went on to enumerate the many Trump aides believed to have some kind of contact or communication with Russians: Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser; Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s second campaign manager; Roger J. Stone Jr., a political adviser; Michael T. Flynn, who was forced out as Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser; and others.

Mr. Schiff relied in part on a so-called dossier on Trump-Russia contacts put together by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who was paid by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by Clinton supporters. Mr. Steele is “highly regarded” by intelligence colleagues, Mr. Schiff noted accurately. But he did not say that the dossier is made up of unproven hearsay from Mr. Steele’s sources, much of which journalists have been unable to confirm.

Republican Prosecutor Zeroes In on Leaks

Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina — another former federal prosecutor — pursued a parallel strategy, but with a different target altogether: The unnamed officials and former officials who have leaked to the media about Trump-Russia issues. What was disturbing, Mr. Gowdy suggested, was not the evidence of Russian connections, but the fact that they were disclosed to the public.

In an outraged tone, Mr. Gowdy noted Washington Post and New York Times articles citing anonymous sources to report that in conversations intercepted by American intelligence, Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions against Russia with Moscow’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak. Such interceptions are highly classified intelligence, Mr. Comey confirmed.

“I thought it was against the law to disseminate classified information. Is it?” Mr. Gowdy asked.

“Yes, sir,” Mr. Comey replied. “It’s a serious crime.”

Mr. Comey appeared more uncomfortable when Mr. Gowdy asked him about a list of senior Obama administration officials whom the Republican Congressman clearly hinted might be the source of leaks. Mr. Gowdy questioned the F.B.I. director about which officials were empowered to learn the names of Americans picked up in intelligence intercepts, even when the names were redacted from intelligence reports for privacy reasons.

Image

James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, arriving to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Monday.CreditEric Thayer for The New York Times

“Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?” Mr. Gowdy asked.

“In general, yes, as would any attorney general,” Mr. Comey replied.

Does Hurting One Candidate Mean Helping Her Opponent?

Under questioning from Representative K. Michael Conaway, Republican of Texas, Mr. Comey confirmed the intelligence agencies’ findings that the goal of Russian interference in the election was to hurt Mrs. Clinton, a particular target of the ire of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.

“To be clear, Mr. Conaway, we all agreed with that judgment,” Mr. Comey said, and Admiral Rogers added his assent.

But Mr. Conaway repeatedly probed the agencies’ additional conclusion: that Russia, and Mr. Putin, also wanted to help Mr. Trump.

Mr. Comey stated what he suggested was obvious: “Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much, that the flip side of that coin was he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much.”

Mr. Conaway attempted a sports analogy — “my wife’s Red Raiders are playing the Texas Longhorns” — and Mr. Comey gamely followed his lead. “Whoever the Red Raiders are playing, you want the Red Raiders to win, by definition, you want their opponent to lose,” the F.B.I. director said.

But their exchange went on for several minutes, exploring a sort of Zen riddle of whether trying to defeat Mrs. Clinton meant trying to elect Mr. Trump.